We have been talking about changing business models for charging for content in print vs. electronic media. Clearly we are going through a trial and error period in which magazines and newspapers are trying different models of charging for content until they find one that works.
The latest news is Sydney newspaper groups to put price on digital content. News Limited and Fairfax Media, are moving ahead with plans to charge customers for access to their digital content.
News Limited is gauging consumer demand for subsidized electronic readers such as Amazon Kindle and the Apple iPad, while Fairfax will launch today the subscriber-only Sydney version of its Good Food Guide website to coincide with the launch of the 2011 print edition.
Its Melbourne site, goodguides.com.au, has been up and running for more than a week. Customers who do not buy the print edition can buy 12-month access to the website for $9.99 – the same price as the Good Food Guide iPhone app. People who buy the book will get access to the website through a redemption code with content not available to the casual browser.
Fairfax group executive editor Philip McLean told The Australian the websites were a very small part of chief executive Brian McCarthy's strategy to charge customers for premium content.
Mr. McCarthy confirmed at Fairfax's solid annual results report last month that the publisher of The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age would move towards a hybrid online model. Customers will be charged for niche or premium content.
Meanwhile, News Limited, publisher of The Australian, has commenced market research into its plans to erect pay walls around its websites. News Limited asks consumers a series of questions about paid content, including whether they would be interested in obtaining a subsidized e-reader tied to a digital subscription.
The question is the strongest indication yet that Australian newspaper publishers may become e-reader retailers, in an approach similar to the way in which telecommunications companies sell mobile phones tied to customer plans. And Fairfax is believed to be considering a more radical way to combat the migration of readers from its print products to the online outlets.
$50 Million to give away 100,000 e-readers.
Macquarie media analyst Alex Pollak has suggested Fairfax could spend about $50 million to give away 100,000 e-readers as part of a broader strategy aimed at shutting down its printing presses.
Mr. McCarthy said Fairfax remained committed to print, but conceded digital audiences would continue to grow. News Corporation chairman and chief executive Rupert Murdoch has described the advent of tablet computers as a game-changer for publishers.
Personally, I think we are years away from shutting down presses in exchange for all digital delivery of content. What do you think?
Howard Fenton is a Senior Consultant at NAPL. Howie advises commercial printers, in-plants, and manufacturers on workflow management, operations, digital services, and customer research.
Discussion
By Michael Jahn on Sep 08, 2010
Well - it sure seems like some think it may be less expensive to distribute certain type of content;
http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/fact-sheet/12455/
Proposal To Save Money And Stretch Resources During These Difficult Times
"This first-in-the-nation initiative will reduce education costs ... and help ensure every California student has access to a world-class education." (Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, 5/6/09)
Sure is taking its time to show up to the party.
By Eddy Hagen (VIGC) on Sep 09, 2010
Not everybody is convinced that going electronic will be more profitable...
The analyst report quoted in this article (http://paidcontent.org/article/419-analyst-paywall-subscribers-worth-a-quarter-of-print-readers/) shows that an electronic reader is worth only a quarter of a print reader...
By Howie Fenton on Sep 10, 2010
Is it contagious .. the NY Times says “We will stop printing,”
The New York Times has sent a shock wave through the publishing industry by predicting the demise of the print version of the grey old lady. Arthur Sulzberger didn’t pin a date to that momentous change, though reports have suggested it could happen within five years. He was speaking at a media conference in London, where the economics of print publishing in the digital age has been front and centre, along with the Times‘s plan to set up a pay wall for its online edition within the next year. “We believe that serious media organisations must start to collect additional revenue from their readers,” Sulzberger told the crowd, adding: “information is less and less yearning to be free.” When asked about rumours the Times would go entirely digital by 2015, he said: “We will stop printing the New York Times sometime in the future, date TBD.”
By Eddy Hagen (VIGC) on Sep 10, 2010
I'm sorry, but what is the value of this statement of Arthur Sulzberger if he does not give *any* indication when that will happen, even if it is a vague indication. "Some time in the future" might as well be in 25 or even 50 years. This is the same as saying that the human race will become extinct some time in the future...
Looking at other possibilities is a necessity for survival, for success. So the NY Times will be looking at the options and maybe/probably making plans. One of them being to stop printing and look at alternative delivery methods. Which eventually will happen. Everybody knows. But when is eventually? In a few years, in a few decades or maybe even later?
We should be carefull with such vague statements. The impact of such statements might even be bigger than the impact of technological evolution. They create a sentiment that printing has no future at all. "Because the expert said so." But are the experts always right?
Discussion
Only verified members can comment.